CHILDREN, SCHOOLS AND FAMILIES

16-19 Funding

Edward Balls: Budget 2009 announced an additional investment of £655 million over the next two years to ensure that every young person aged 16 and 17 who wants to study or take up a training place will have their place guaranteed by the Government under the September Guarantee. £25l million of this investment is being used to fund 54,500 places and additional support for young people from this September, bringing our total investment in the education and training of young people to £6.8 billion in 2009-10.
	In March, schools, colleges and other training providers told us that the allocations they had received would not meet the increase in local demand they were already experiencing or were expecting from September 2009. Budget 2009 now allows us to provide funding for the additional 32,000 learner places schools and colleges notified us of earlier in the spring, and to make provision for a further 22,500 learners who we expect will want a place in learning later this year. This is necessary for us to meet the September Guarantee.
	I am today announcing the regional breakdown of the £77 million investment which is funding the further 22,500 places. The Learning and Skills Council (LSC) has recently notified schools, colleges and training providers of these allocations, which are focused on supporting young people who would otherwise be at risk of becoming NEET (not in employment, education or training).
	Our investment means we have increased the number of places available this September and next by 54,500 to an all time high of more than 1.55 million. Together with the 17,500 apprenticeships places for young people announced by the Prime Minister, that is 72,000 young people more than were first set out in the LSC's annual statement of priorities in November 2008. This funding means that we can make sure that young people who are especially vulnerable have a suitable offer of a place by expanding the Entry to Employment programme by 13,000 places in 2009-10.
	This is a huge investment in the skills of our young people to ensure that they can gain the skills and confidence to put them on the path to economic prosperity and to prepare the country so it is well placed for economic recovery with young people having the skills base it needs. We must make sure that every young person knows the wide range of education and training options open to them under the September Guarantee. We expect the Connexions service, schools, colleges and other providers to work with the local authorities to deliver the Guarantee.
	We know that the recession will continue to have an impact on the choices being made by young people over the summer and may increase demand further for learning and training places. I have therefore asked the Association of School and College Leadership, the Association of Colleges and the LSC to monitor the situation and to report to me after the bulk of the recruitment for the 2009-10 academic year has taken place this September. This will also inform our plans for the 2010-11 academic year and will be crucial as we make the transition from the LSC to local authority led commissioning. I will then make a further assessment of the situation, with my Cabinet colleagues, to ensure all young people who want one can have a suitable place at school, college or training provider.
	
		
			 Regional Analysis of 16-18 Allocation to Schools, Colleges and other Providers—Excluding Apprenticeships and Entry to Employment Provision (2009-10) 
			 Region Post-Budget 09 Allocation(excludes E2E and apprenticeships) Allocationof extra22,540places Allocationof extra22,540places 
			 East of England £313.9m £9.3m 2,766 
			 East Midlands £204.3m £4.9m 1,464 
			 London £l,479.5m £6.8m 1,841 
			 North East £572.7m £5.4m 1,780 
			 North West £914.0m £13.8m 4,199 
			 South East £762.0m £11.3m 3,144 
			 South West £365.5m £7.8m 2,281 
			 West Midlands £462. lm £5.8m 1,532 
			 Yorkshire and the Humber £529.6m £8.2m 2,570 
			 other £ 17.2m £3.7m 963 
			 SEN £193.0m n/a  
			 TPG £74.0m n/a  
			 Academies £112.0m n/a  
			 Grand Total £5,999.7m £77m 22,540 
			 Notes to table: 1. The matching to Local Authority and hence to Region is done on best fit and derived from post code of the head office of the providers to whom the allocation is made. It is possible for these providers to operate across more than one authority area, although there is no double counting of the funding allocations. 2. The figures by region do not include allocations for Entry to Employment provision or apprenticeships. 3. The figures by region do not include any allocations for Academies, SEN, or Teacher Pay Grant. 4. The total figures shown for SEN and Teachers Pay Grant are for the 2009-10 Financial Year as this is how this funding is allocated. As such they are not directly comparable to the other funding figures which are all 2009-10 Academic Year based.

HEALTH

Written Answer (Correction)

Ann Keen: I regret that the information given in my written answer to the hon. Member for South Cambridgeshire (Mr. Lansley) on11 May 2009, Official Report, column 627, was incorrect.
	Details of consultant-led and midwife-led maternity units have been placed in the Library.

HOME DEPARTMENT

Language Analysis

Phil Woolas: I have made an authorisation under section 19D of the Race Relations Act 1976 as amended, to enable the Secretary of State to request that asylum applicants claiming to be nationals of Palestine or Kuwait submit to language analysis.
	Language analysis carried out for some Somali asylum applicants demonstrates that significant proportions of those tested have claimed to be of a nationality, or from a region or grouping, that is not their own in order to try to gain residence in this country. We are aware that a significant proportion of Palestinian and Kuwaiti claims also are from other nationalities. This new authorisation will assist the Secretary of State to make decisions in individual Palestinian and Kuwaiti cases, and to ascertain the extent of abuse within these nationalities.
	The Secretary of State may take a refusal to submit to testing into account when determining whether an applicant has assisted in establishing the facts of his case or her case.
	The authorisation will remain in place for 11 months (until April 2010), at which point we will review whether it is still necessary and appropriate.
	I am placing a copy of the authorisation in the Libraries of both Houses of Parliament.

Control Order Powers (11 March 2009 - 10 June 2009)

David Hanson: Section 14(1) of the Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005 (the 2005 Act) requires the Secretary of State to report to Parliament as soon as reasonably practicable after the end of every relevant three-month period on the exercise of control order powers during that period.
	The level of information provided will always be subject to slight variations based on operational advice.
	Control orders continue to be an essential tool to protect the public from terrorism, particularly where it is not possible to prosecute individuals for terrorism-related activity and, in the case of foreign nationals, where they cannot be removed from the UK.
	As stated in previous quarterly statements on control orders, control order obligations are tailored to the individual concerned and are based on the terrorism-related risk that each individual poses. Each control order is kept under regular review to ensure that obligations remain necessary and proportionate. The Home Office continues to hold Control Order Review Groups (CORGs) every quarter, with representation from law enforcement and intelligence agencies, to keep the obligations in every control order under regular and formal review and to facilitate a review of appropriate exit strategies. During this reporting period, three CORGs were held in relation to the orders currently in force. In addition, further meetings were held on an ad hoc basis as specific issues arose.
	During the period 11 March 2009 to 10 June 2009, five non-derogating control orders were made and served. Six control orders have been renewed in accordance with section 2(6) of the 2005 Act. One control order against an individual was revoked prior to being quashed by the court. One further control order has been revoked on direction from the court. Two non-derogating control orders made but not served in the previous quarter have also been revoked and one control order made but not served in a previous quarter has expired.
	In total, twenty control orders are currently in force, ten of which are in respect of British citizens. Six individuals subject to a control order live in the Metropolitan Police Service area; the remaining individuals live in other police force areas. All of these control orders are non-derogating. No prosecutions for breaching a control order were completed during this reporting period.
	During this reporting period, 108 modifications of control order obligations were made. Twenty-four requests to modify control order obligations were refused. A right of appeal is provided for by section 10(1) of the 2005 Act against a decision by the Secretary of State to renew a non-derogating control order or to modify an obligation imposed by a non-derogating control order without consent. Six appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons in relation to the renewal of control orders during this reporting period. Three appeals have been lodged against decisions by the Secretary of State to modify obligations imposed by non-derogating control orders without consent. A right of appeal is also provided for by section 10(3) of the 2005 Act against decisions by the Secretary of State to refuse a request by a controlled person to revoke their order and/or to modify any obligation under the order. Two appeals have been lodged with the High Court by controlled persons relating to refusal to modify a control order.
	Two judgments have been handed down by the High Court in control order cases during this reporting period in relation to substantive reviews of the individual control orders under section 3(10) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AT and AW a judgment was handed down on 20 March 2009. The court ruled that the control order imposed on AT remains necessary and proportionate but quashed one obligation and directed the Secretary of State to amend another. In the case of AW, the court quashed the control order on the grounds that the decision to make the control order was made on a materially erroneous basis. A judgment was handed down in the case of Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AV on 30 April 2009. The court directed the Secretary of State to revoke the order on the basis that recent events pertinent to the case meant the order was no longer necessary, although the High Court was satisfied that that the decisions to make the original control order and the renewed control order were necessary and not flawed.
	One judgment was handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to a modification appeal under section 10(3) of the 2005 Act. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. AM, judgment was handed down on 23 March 2009. The court dismissed the appeal and upheld all obligations as necessary and proportionate.
	One judgment was handed down by the High Court during this reporting period in relation to an application for interim relief pursuant to an application for judicial review, the purpose of which was to prevent the Secretary of State from acting on a modification to a control order. In Secretary of State for the Home Department v. BM, the judgment handed down on 22 May 2009 refused injunctive relief and gave directions for the section 10(1) appeal against the modification.
	Two controlled persons have applied for, and been granted, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal against High Court judgments in this reporting period. The Secretary of State has also applied for, and been granted, permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal in relation to two control order cases.
	As reported in the last written ministerial statement, the House of Lords heard the appeals in the cases of AE, AF and AN between 3 and 9 March 2009. The judgments, handed down on 10 June 2009, held that for control order proceedings to be compatible with article 6 of the ECHR, a controlled person must be given sufficient information about the allegations against him to allow him to give effective instructions in relation to those allegations. Provided that this requirement is satisfied there can be a fair trial notwithstanding that the controlled person is not provided with the detail or the sources of the evidence forming the basis of the allegations. Where, however, the open material consists purely of general assertions and the case against the individual is based solely or to a decisive degree on closed materials the requirements of a fair trial will not be satisfied, however cogent the case based on the closed materials may be. All three appeals were allowed and the cases will now be remitted to the High Court for this disclosure test to be applied.
	Full judgments are available at: http://www.bailii.org/

JUSTICE

Ministry of Justice (Annual Report 2008-09)

Jack Straw: I have today published, and laid before Parliament, the "Ministry of Justice Annual Report for 2008-09" (Cm 7600).
	The report sets out the good progress we have made this year in meeting our mission of creating a just, safe and democratic society. It provides the first full year reporting of progress against our 2007 Public Service Agreement (deliver a more effective, transparent and responsive criminal justice system for victims and the public) and our departmental strategic objectives, and reports against targets set in the 2004 spending review that are still current. The report also includes our progress on implementing outstanding Public Accounts Committee recommendations.

SCOTLAND

Commission on Scottish Devolution

Jim Murphy: On behalf of the Government I welcome the publication today of the final report from the Commission on Scottish Devolution.
	The Commission was set up by the Scottish Parliament and supported by the UK Government. The Commission's remit was:
	"to review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."
	The Commission, under the chairmanship of Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, have produced a detailed report, based on sound analysis, a robust evidence base and extensive engagement with people in Scotland. I welcome in particular the efforts the Commission made to engage as widely as possible, through public events across the country, through oral and written evidence, a public questionnaire and through their website.
	I welcome their conclusion that the devolution settlement in Scotland has been "a remarkable and substantial success". We are approaching the 10th anniversary of the Scottish Parliament receiving full legislative competence, and there is broad support in Scotland and across the UK for the devolution settlement. The Scottish Parliament has established itself firmly in public life, bringing greater accountability to the people of Scotland, and innovation in both policy and working methods.
	The Government agree with the Commission's conclusion that, in order to serve the people of Scotland better, and to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom, the institutions of the United Kingdom and Scotland must be able to work together effectively. The Government have already taken steps to reinvigorate the Joint Ministerial Committee and to ensure close working with the Scottish Government, in particular in the face of the global economic downturn. We will consider the Commission's recommendations in this area carefully.
	Ten years on, the Scottish Parliament needs to have the financial responsibilities to match its ambitions for Scotland. We asked the Commission to examine the options for improving financial accountability. The Commission outlines a new financial model that would give significantly more responsibility to the Scottish Parliament for decisions on tax and spending in Scotland. The Commission's model empowers and requires the Scottish Parliament to make a decision on the balance between taxes and public spending. Their recommendations draw from the work of Professor Anton Muscatelli's group of independent financial experts.
	The Government agree that financial accountability could be achieved by moving to a system where a greater proportion of the Scottish Parliament's budget comes from their own decisions. We welcome the Commission's model which provides a promising and well-evidenced basis on which we can work with the Scottish Parliament and others to bring forward practical proposals. The suggested changes are complex, and require detailed and careful consideration. The Government will assess, and explore how to implement, these proposals. We agree with the Commission's recommendation that any change should be introduced in a phased way to manage the risks of instability in public finances and of windfall gains or shocks and will take this into account in developing proposals.
	The Commission proposes further changes to the powers and functions of the Scottish Parliament, based on the work of a task group led by Sir David Edward. I am grateful for their careful consideration of this important area. Their work highlights the range and depth of responsibilities which the Scottish Parliament already has. They broadly endorse the existing settlement, but recommend adjustments. The Government are willing to adjust the devolution settlement, where there is benefit to the people of Scotland and where it will strengthen Scotland's place within the Union.
	A steering group comprising parties involved in the Calman Commission process, chaired by myself, will help the UK Government and the Scottish Parliament plan how to take forward the Calman recommendations and deliver stronger devolution within a stronger United Kingdom.
	The Government warmly welcome this report, copies of which have been placed in the Libraries of both Houses and the Vote Office. I am grateful to Sir Kenneth and the members of his Commission for their work. I look forward to working with colleagues, partners and stakeholders here and in Scotland to take forward the report.

WORK AND PENSIONS

Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2009

Helen Goodman: The Social Security (Industrial Injuries) (Prescribed Diseases) Amendment Regulations 2009 have today been laid before Parliament. The regulations implement, from 13 July 2009, the recommendation set out in the Industrial Injuries Advisory Council's report—"Osteoarthritis of the knee in coal miners". The Command Paper (Cm 7440) was published in August 2008.
	The recommendation made in the report was to add the disease osteoarthritis of the knee to the schedule of prescribed diseases. These regulations implement that recommendation.
	This means that all coal miners who worked underground in coal mines for an aggregate of 10 years or more before 1986 can claim industrial injuries disablement benefit if they suffer from osteoarthritis of the knee. Work from 1986 onwards as a coal face worker at a non-mechanised coal face, and for certain other categories of work, can be included in the 10 years' qualifying period.